Gallup Shows Obama Trails Any Republican 46%-38%

Ed Morrissey - I think I have this election licked.  All we need to do is find a Republican candidate with plain wrapping and a blue stripe:

U.S. registered voters, by 46% to 38%, continue to say they are more likely to vote for the Republican presidential candidate than for Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. The generic Republican led by the same eight-percentage-point margin in September, and also held a lead in July. The August update, conducted just after an agreement to raise the federal debt limit, had Obama with a slight edge.
The current results are based on a Gallup poll conducted Oct. 6-9. The eight-point lead for the Republican candidate persists, 50% to 42%, when taking into account the leanings of undecided voters.

Is this really a good indicator of future outcomes?  That’s arguable. Gallup notes that an incumbent President 20 years ago had a 17-point lead over the generic challenger, and who could forget the glorious second term of George H. W. Bush? On the other hand, his son had a narrow 3-point lead at this stage over a generic opponent and won the next year by just about the same margin.
Of course, an incumbent President should have a substantial lead over an unknown challenger, at least if that President wants a second term.  When an incumbent falls below 50%, a risk arises of having undecideds break sharply for “change,” and Obama is 12 points below that threshold.  That’s not in the “change” category, that’s in the “jump ship” category.  This is the second time in a row that Gallup has Obama at this low re-elect support against a generic challenger, both of which are new lows in this series.  It indicates that his new class-warfare schtick isn’t playing well with voters, at least not at the moment.
However, Republicans won’t be nominating a generic opponent; they will have to nominate someone whose weaknesses will get tested by the Obama campaign for months, while Obama’s weaknesses are already well known.  This poll shows that the eventual Republican nominee will face an electorate that wants a change — but the nominee will still have to make the case.

Fast And Furious Investagation "Bigger Than Watergate"

Rabble Rouser And Reverend Amy - So say Obama officials about the “Fast and Furious” program, according to Sharyl Attkisson (h/t to Helenk for this article). This story is moving fast now, with Holder being issued a subpoena by Congressional investigators finally (again, thanks, Helenk!).

But I don’t want to get ahead of myself. What Ms. Attkisson said in a recent CBS radio interview with Chris Stigall is really startling, shocking, infuriating, and disconcerting. No, really, it is. Check out these excerpts from the interview:

“Since the very beginning, those who knew a lot more about this case than I did, including officials who work for the Obama Administration – this is nothing particularly against him or anyone else who happened to be in charge – they have said this is bigger than Iran Contra. They have said this is bigger than Watergate.” Attkisson replied.

The CBS investigative reporter also noted, “The idea that this started as one whistleblower that pretty much all the officials were painting out to be a liar – an ATF agent in Phoenix. And to see where this has moved over the months to officials admitting, okay this program was going on but it was isolated to Phoenix, Arizona. Then saying, okay people did know about it at ATF headquarters, but that’s where it stopped. To saying, ok the White House and DOJ did know about Fast & Furious but they didn’t know about the details.”

Doesn’t that just make you so angry? The lies, lies, and more lies to cover up what this Administration did while casting false aspersions against the whistleblower. And that is just the start of it.

Attkisson discusses the issue of Holder and his testimony, and there is lots coming out about that now (again, Holder has been subpoenad), but this part of the interview really caught my eye:

The Philadelphia radio host then queried, “Do you believe Sharyl that this goes beyond the Department of Justice because of the international nature and the homeland security nature? I have read people surmising that this has to involve almost by definition it must involve the Secretary of State’s office and the Department of Homeland Security.”

“Congress is trying to find that out, they’ve been asking for documents from the State Department and other departments and haven’t always gotten – well, they haven’t gotten a lot of what they asked for, so they don’t know yet.” Attkisson replied. (Click here to read the rest.)

Okay, I had not thought about the potential State Department component of all of this. It makes sense, of course, considering the involvement with another nation. Naturally, any discussion of the State Department cannot be had without mentioning the head of the Department, Sec. Clinton.

I know this is going to sound silly, but it honestly choked me up to read this. I am just so disheartened by Clinton’s participation in this tainted Administration, and all of the ways her carrying out Obama’s flawed policies affect her. With hindsight being 20/20, I wish she had never sullied her name by going to work for this man. Now, she is connected to this incredibly short-sighted program which cost the life of a border patrol agent and numerous Mexicans, giving support to the TALIBAN opening offices in Qatar, even as they are attacking our embassies and military bases, and validating the Muslim Brotherhood. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Never mind her going to work for a man who was abusive to her, and women in general, a reality that overshadows her work for women and children.

Indeed – all I can think of is the old adage, if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

As for Holder, despite his whining and complaining, he is in the very midst of this whole thing. I love this excuse from the head of the DOJ:

On Friday, Holder sent a letter to congressional investigators stating that he does not read every document addressed to him and that they are reviewed by members of his staff. Holder went on to say that none of the reports mentioned the controversial tactics used in Fast and Furious.

Ah, the “I didn’t do my job by reading these critical reports” defense. Good one! Except Issa is not buying what Holder is selling (thank goodness):

On Monday, Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating the scandal, replied to Holder in a letter saying, “Operation Fast and Furious was the department’s most significant gun trafficking case. Whether you realize yet or not, you own Fast and Furious. It is your responsibility.”

Issa told “Fox News Sunday” that he was going to issue the subpoena to find out why the top Justice officials are “denying knowing about something that they were briefed on?”

“We want to know what and when they knew it,” he said. “But more importantly, we have to understand — at what level of the authorization really come? It wasn’t an ATF operation. They were part of that. It was a joint operation in which DEA knew more than ATF.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, we DO want to know what, where, how, why all of this came to be, as well as the involvement of the State Department, and any other government departments that may have had a hand in this poorly conceived program.

So, let the subpoenas fly, Rep. Issa. Let’s get tot the bottom of this no matter where it leads or who it takes down. Watergate was big, HUGE, in fact. If this is bigger, then let the hearings begin

Should Conservatives Endorse Herman Cain 9-9-9 Plan

Ed Morrissey - Herman Cain got what he wanted from this week’s debate — he drew attention to his 9-9-9 plan for tax reform, and he proved that he could handle attacks from the field and maintain his aggressiveness.  But now that Cain has drawn attention to the plan he says will jump start the economy, he will find more questions and challenges as well as supporters.  In the latter camp, Art Laffer has given his supply-side stamp of approval:

Famed supply-side economist Art Laffer told HUMAN EVENTS that Cain’s “9-9-9″ plan was a pro-growth plan that would create the proper conditions for America’s economy to grow and thrive again.
“Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would be a vast improvement over the current tax system and a boon to the U.S. economy,” Laffer told HUMAN EVENTS in a statement. “The goal of supply-side tax reform is always a broadening of the tax base and lowering of marginal tax rates.”
Added Laffer: “Mr. Cain’s plan is simple, transparent, neutral with respect to capital and labor, and savings and consumption, and also greatly decreases the hidden costs of tax compliance. There is no doubt that economic growth would surge upon implementation of 9-9-9.”
Laffer also said that “such a system provides the least avenues to avoid paying taxes, yet also maintains the strongest incentives for work effort, production, and investment.”

On the other hand, ABC News walked through the implications for a household of four earning the average national wage of “just under $50,000,” and finds that these middle-class voters will get squeezed, and squeezed hard.  That’s largely due to the third “nine,” the new federal sales tax that Cain’s proposal would create in tandem with flat taxes on personal and corporate income (also see update below):

If you have a family of four with an income of just under $50,000, they would pay more under the Cain plan. Currently, they are taxed at just less than 7 percent and pay $3,400 in income tax. Under Cain’s plan, they would be taxed at 9 percent or pay $4,500.
That’s $1,100 more.
Although the family would save almost $4,000 in Social Security taxes, it would have to give up the child tax credit of $4,000. Furthermore, it would pay an additional national sales tax of 9 percent on everything purchased, including groceries and clothes, which totals about $2,000.
That means under the Cain plan that family would be almost doubling its taxes, going from $3,400 to $6,500.

Most of the damage in this case comes not from the flattening of the tax code and the elimination of deductions — which would be almost entirely offset by the elimination of other tax streams, as Cain promises — but from the national sales tax.  In my column for The Fiscal Times today, I question whether conservatives want to champion a new tax that almost by definition will have a regressive impact on voters — and could open a constitutional Pandora’s Box that will undermine arguments against creeping federal encroachment.  But first, let’s be clear as to what exactly 9-9-9 is — and isn’t:

It is not a comprehensive economic plan. It’s actually not even a budget plan. That’s why Cain’s challenge to Romney in the debate was somewhat unfair; Romney’s 160-page proposal is a broad economic plan with specifics on deficit reduction and entitlement reform, trade and energy policy. 9-9-9 is more properly categorized as tax reform.
9-9-9 is also transitional tax reform, not the end goal. On Cain’s website, he describes 9-9-9 as merely Phase 1 of tax reform. The final stage of Cain’s tax vision is the Fair Tax proposal pushed by Mike Huckabee in the 2008 election cycle, which is a consumption tax modeled on the European value-added tax (VAT). Cain developed the 9-9-9 plan to “unite the ‘Flat Taxers’ with the ‘Fair Taxers.’”

That’s a laudable goal, but instead of uniting the two camps by using a flat tax as an intermediate step, Cain adds the federal sales tax while the income taxes are still in place.  That creates a new federal income stream rather than replacing the existing income-tax stream.  We’d have to hope that Congress could repeal the 16th Amendment shortly after implementing 9-9-9, but that’s a time-consuming process.  Cain is going to have a hard time finding two-thirds of the politicians in Congress willing to give up their ability to use the income tax as a spoils system, either now or in the future.  In the meantime, the federal government will be inserting itself into every retail transaction in the country.
And just how do conservatives feel about that?

Finally, without a specific constitutional amendment authorizing it, a federal sales tax on general purchases would get challenged by small-government federalists on principle. Unless the sale crosses state lines, it is difficult to see federal jurisdiction at the cash register for most transactions. Accepting that Congress can impose a sales tax on transactions at the local grocery store without a Constitutional amendment granting such authority would require conservatives to embrace a Wickard v Filburn philosophy of interstate commerce. Since a rejection of that philosophy is at the heart of conservative opposition to ObamaCare and its mandate, don’t expect conservatives to leap for joy at the thought of a new definition of interstate commerce that fits the final “nine” in Cain’s plan.

The federal sales tax, at least without a Constitutional amendment, makes the limitation of federal authority to interstate commerce absolutely dead.  If they have tax jurisdiction on any retail sales transaction in America, then Congress has the explicit power to regulate all commerce, not just the encroachments we’ve seen through Wickard.
Cain’s a smart man who knows how to adapt when a business plan doesn’t work out.  I’d prefer to see his 9-9-9 plan modified to a 15-15 plan, or a plan to just transfer to a constitutionally-based (and constitutionally-limited) Fair Tax without the intermediate steps at all, rather than a hybrid that ends up with Americans paying taxes in two streams, and Congress still able to manipulate both for their own political purposes.  Cain has proven that he thinks out of the box, and he’s absolutely right that we can’t pivot to long-term growth and economic stability by tweaking the systems we currently have — but a new federal sales tax on top of an income tax would be a Pandora’s Box conservatives should not want to see opened.
Update: HA reader Bill C says ABC’s computation is in error:

The first step is fine … $3400 vs $4500.  However, the $4000 from Soc Sec. taxes is direct return, but the $4000 tax credit is an adjustment to the amount to be taxed, to the amount they pay MORE would be 9% of that or $360.  $4500 – $4000 + $360 = $860.  If you then add the $2000, you end up with $3400 vs $2860.
So it is not almost doubling the tax, but reducing it by a little more than $500.

I’ll drop ABC a note to ask them to review this, but I believe Bill is correct.
Update II: However, the Tax Policy Center says the Cain calculation is also overstating current tax liability for a family of four at $50,000 (via Jen Rubin):

In fact, a family making $50,000 a year with two children would only pay about $776 in income taxes when standard deductions are factored in, based on 2010 Internal Revenue Service levels. (In fact, not factoring in deductions, a married couple filing jointly making $50,000 a year would pay $6,666 in income tax, not $10,000. But what’s important for tax purposes is “taxable” income.)
Here’s the math:
- Gross Income: $50,000
- Subtract the 2010 standard deduction: $11,400 (2011 is $11,600)
- Subtract the personal exemption (essentially the number of people in the house): $14,600 ($3,650 x 4)
- That brings us to a taxable income of $24,000
- The tax on a married couple filing jointly at $24,000: $2,766
- Then, deduct an additional $2,000 ($1,000 child tax credit x 2)
That comes out to just $766. And that doesn’t include other potential exemptions, like educator credits, moving costs, student-loan interest, health-savings accounts, etc.

ABC also got the child tax credits wrong; it’s correct in this analysis.

Herman Cain Leads Gov. Romney In South Carolina

                                                       South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

South Carolina
Likely Republican Primary Voters	Oct 2011
Bachmann	5%
Cain	26%
Gingrich	8%
Huntsman	-
Johnson	-
Paul	7%
Perry	15%
Roemer	-
Romney	25%
Santorum	1%
Other	1%
Undecided	12%

Herman Cain leads the South Carolina Republican presidential primary with 26%. Cain is followed closely by Mitt Romney at 25%. Rick Perry is third at 15%.
In July, Romney was leading with 25%, followed by Sarah Palin at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 13%, and Herman Cain at 10%.
Among likely primary voters considering themselves to be Republicans, Cain and Romney are tied at 27% each, followed by Perry at 15%.
Among Tea Party supporters, Cain leads with 35%, followed by Perry at 16% and Romney at 15%.
Among those saying they are not Tea Party supporters or are undecided about the Tea Party, Romney leads with 33%, followed by Cain at 19%, Perry at 14%, and Ron Paul at 10%.
Details from the survey of 600 likely Republican primary voters conducted October 5-10 can be found here.

---

September 30, 2011
Lynch and Obama Job Approval in New Hampshire

Lynch Job Approval Ratings
9/29/2011	Approve	Disapprove	Undecided
Overall	56%	23%	21%
Economy	55%	27%	18%

Has John Lynch received the highest quarterly job approval rating since the New Hampshire Poll began in 1976? No.
The highest quarterly job approval rating, 77%, goes to Jeanne Shaheen in March 1998. She is followed closely by Steve Merrill in June 1993 with an approval rating of 76%, and John Sununu in June 1983 with an approval rating of 71%. Lynch's highest approval rating to date was 68% in September 2006. Lynch's quarterly average is 52% approve compared to Shaheen's average of 53% approve while she was governor.

Obama Job Approval Ratings in NH
9/29/2011	Approve	Disapprove	Undecided
Overall	31%	59%	10%
Economy	27%	65%	8%

A total of 51% of New Hampshire residents say they are financially worse off compared to a year ago, 37% say they are the same, and 12% say they are better off. Of the 31% saying they approve of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president, 29% say they are better off, 50% say they are the same, and 21% say they are worse off. Of the 59% saying they disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job, 6% say they are financially better off, 29% say they are the same, and 65% say they are worse off compared to a year ago.
Results from the September 2011 Quarterly New Hampshire Poll are now available. NH residents rate NH business conditions, their personal finances, John Lynch, and Barack Obama.

---

September 28, 2011
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus

Iowa
Likely Republican Caucus Goers	Sep 2011
Bachmann	15%
Cain	6%
Gingrich	8%
Huntsman	1%
Johnson	-
Palin	4%
Paul	12%
Perry	14%
Roemer	1%
Romney	21%
Santorum	2%
Other	1%
Undecided	15%

Mitt Romney leads among likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers with 21%. Romney is followed by Michele Bachmann at 15%, Rick Perry at 14%, and Ron Paul at 12%.
In early July, Bachmann was leading with 21%, followed by Romney at 18%, Paul at 14%, Sarah Palin at 11%, and Perry at 2%.
Among Tea Party supporters, Bachmann leads with 19% (down from 30% in July), Perry is at 14% (up from 3% in July), Gingrich and Paul are at 13% each, Herman Cain is at 10%, and Romney is at 6%.
Among those saying they are not Tea Party supporters or are undecided about the Tea Party, Romney leads with 37% (up from 31% in July), followed by Perry at 15%, Paul at 11%, and Bachmann at 10%.
Among those saying they will definitely attend the Republican caucus, Romney leads with 19% (up from 17% in July), followed by Bachmann and Perry at 15% each, and Paul at 14%. In July, 25% of definite Republican caucus-goers said Bachmann and 2% said Perry.
Details from the survey of 600 likely Republican caucus-goers conducted September 22-27 can be found here.

---

September 22, 2011
New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary

New Hampshire
Likely Republican Primary Voters	Sep 2011
Bachmann	7%
Cain	4%
Gingrich	4%
Huntsman	10%
Johnson	-
Palin	4%
Paul	12%
Perry	13%
Roemer	1%
Romney	30%
Santorum	2%
Other	1%
Undecided	12%

Mitt Romney continues to lead the New Hampshire Republican presidential preference primary. Romney, at 30% among likely Republican primary voters, is followed by Rick Perry at 13%, Ron Paul at 12%, and Jon Huntsman at 10%.
Preference for Romney is virtually unchanged since a similar survey in July, but Perry is up 11 percentage points, Huntsman is up 10 percentage points, and Paul is up 8 percentage points from the July survey. Bachmann has lost 5 percentage points since the July survey.
Romney leads among registered Republicans likely to vote in the presidential primary with 35%, followed by Perry at 13% and Paul at 10%. Among undeclared voters (independents), Romney leads with 19%, followed by Huntsman at 17%, Paul at 15%, and Perry at 14%.
Perry leads among Tea Party supporters with 23%, followed by Romney at 21%, and Paul at 10%. Among likely Republican primary voters saying they are not supporters of the Tea Party or that they are undecided about the Tea Party, Romney leads with 38%, followed by Huntsman at 19%, and Paul at 13%.
Details from the survey of 600 likely Republican primary voters conducted September 16-21 can be found here.

---

September 21, 2011

Obama Job Approval Ratings
9/20/11	Approve	Disapprove	Undecided
Overall	41%	56%	3%
Economy	37%	60%	3%

A total of 41% of Americans say they approve of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president and 56% say they disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job. In August, 41% of Americans approved of the job Obama was doing and 53% disapproved. When it comes to Obama's handling of the economy, 37% of Americans approve and 60% disapprove. In August, 40% approved and 55% disapproved of Obama's handling of the economy.
Among Americans registered to vote, 40% approve of the way Obama is handling his job as president and 57% disapprove. On Obama's handling of the economy, 36% of registered voters approve and 60% disapprove.
Details from the nationwide survey conducted September 17-20 are available at The National Economy.